The SAF as a Doomsday device
-
Am relatively new to this forum, and found it interesting that there seems to be a large interest here on the possible outcome of a Singapore-Malaysia war.
Personally, I have done my part serving in the SAF. Let me share my 5 cents worth of what I think is the SAF's role - that of being a doomsday device.
If we are attacked, the SAF will punch into the enemy (e.g. Malaysia) with its superior firepower (esp air force and armour), cohesion of its combined arms as well as its technological edge (e.g. C3 - command, control and communications). With our early warning systems we'll probably be even doing a pre-emptive stike.
Given the SAF edge in combat readiness (if our reservists think our guys are bad, check out how well the Malaysians are faring when their mechanised equipment, planes and ships have problems retaining minimum combat operativeness), early success in initial engagements seems very likely.
But our goal of a swift and decisive victory is not easily reached. The enemy have the strategic depth which Singapore lacks. Once they pull in, the situation may very well end up in a war of attrition. How long can we afford to mobilise our NSmen, who are simultaneously playing important roles in our economy? How many NSmen can we afford to lose? Essentially, the activation of the SAF in war comes with a terrible price.
The SAF acts as a force of deterrence. When attacked, we possess the ability to retaliate - to hit back and do so much damage as to outweigh any possible gain the attacker might have in starting the conflict.
A earlier model of deterrence was that of Singapore being a 'poisoned shrimp' causing whoever who eats it a serious case of stomachache. But we have come far since then, and now possess the firepower to do some really serious damage.
Hence the SAF is like a doomsday device. When attacked, we go *boom!* - we hit you hard, we get hit hard, everyone gets hit. But get this fact straight - when the war starts, everyone loses.
Hotheads on both sides of the fence should be aware of this fact, this price to be paid by both sides if hot-air rhethorics and military adventurism get carried away too far one day..... -
Yes, I completely agree with Reggi. That sums up our defence posture and strategy quite well.
-
haha..a kinda of "A sum of fears" strategy to our would be enemies in the future...
-
I have to disagreed.....Originally posted by EXCO:Yes, I completely agree with Reggi. That sums up our defence posture and strategy quite well.
one must be more creative than simply going to war, destroy and getting killed...
there are system and methods available that will enable SAF to fight... win... command.. control and hold those territories....
The economy will no doubt suffer.. initiatlly... until we can begin to reorganize the economy and finally begin to assimilate the enemy into our fold.... -
Any attempt to hold on to Malaysian territory will effectively force both Indonesia and Malaysia to unite against us. For all their ups and downs in diplomacy, Islam will be a strong unifying factor, as well as the fact of common interest against an aggressive expansionist Singapore.
Given the size of their combined territories, it would be impossible to overrun them. As they pull in and engage in guerilla warfare, we would be drawn into precise the type of war we would want to avoid - a war of attrition.
Elements within the Middle East can be counted to support them with arms etc given that Singapore has always been aligned staunchly with the US. On the other hand, we cannot even be sure of US support if we are in the role of the aggressor.
Territorial ambitions will transform Singapore into the Israel of South East Asia. Is this something that we want? -
It is not something we want. But it is something we will expend all efforts to achieve if circumstances are forced upon us.
Islam is only a unifying force superficially. Millitary alliances are amongst the most fragile of political associations. Especially if the parties are united only in their cause against a common enemy. They will begin to step on each other's tail after awhile and start killing each other instead.
Case in point: WW2, Germany and Japan. Nothing in common, conflicting territorial interests but joined in alliance due to a superficial ideology.
And if Islam was a unifying force, then why isn't the Middle East one big happy family? Its much more complicated than that. Don't oversimplify geo-politics by using labels to freely. They mislead more often than they clarify.
You also forget that the southern tip of the peninsula is predominantly ethnic Chinese. They may not prove willing collaborators now, but people follow their interests just as often as they follow their nationalist passions. It will ultimately depend on the circumstances surrounding the scenario.
For instance, You think Malaysian Chinese are gonna happily give up the Chinese language, convert to Islam and invade Singapore if Malaysia and Indonesia unites in a religious alliance to smite the region of the Pagan Chinese scourge?
In such a scenario, Sg can count on not being alone... The Thais would get nervous and the Chinese might just wanna move in to claim their piece of the Spratlys and the Americans would wanna move in to "stabilise" the region.
Its not as simple as u think... -
The topic post does not give room for external forces. It simply reflects on our defence doctrine which is largely true to the post. If we take a moment and think about it, the region is not a stable place. As CX has pointed out, Islam is the dominant "force" in the region, but that has its limitations and fragilities. However it does pose a certain threat to Singapore and other non-Islamic countries if our neighbours become "extreme". As for the Chinese and Spratly Islands, I doubt China would come into the picture due to the Spratlys should war occur between Singapore and Malaysia. The Chinese would not want to be implicated in a war which they may be seen as "chance-takers" and also the Islamic factor stands to this point. Thailand, on the other hand have a high possibility of joining the conflict as they have strong ties with Singapore and Malaysia.
-
I don't think that its helpful to discuss ANYTHING narrowly... it simply does not do justice to the enormous complexities involved in the regional/global scheme of things.
The USA is an important factor influencing the SAF's defence posture. You can't rule them out. Besides, you need peacekeepers after that... so why limit the scope of discussion to only Sg and the immediate region? -
Well Singapore has always play the balancing act between the two tigers (Indonesia and Malaysia) eyeing the fat meat (Singapore). There is seldom a time when Singapore has a very good relationship with both countries at the same time. When the blind fool and Habbie cause the relationship come to a low point (anyway only the leaders are having problems with us because their army was embrassed with their leaders remark as we are on a goodwill mission in Indonesia at that time), we are on quite good terms with Malaysia. and vice versa.
Of course there is no guarantee that we will not be attack as other factors will come into consideration. Issue like having troops in Brunei might come into play.(Without our troops in Brunei, it will have become the 14th state of the Federation of Malaysia)
However if the motive of attacking Singapore is occupy the country for economic purpose, then the enemy will not be so stuipd as to bomb the whole country. This is because the infrastructure of Singapore is the most valuable asset that we have. But if they attack just because we annoyed them then they will pay a heavy price in their action. I think the SAF doctrine is to wage war in the enemy ground and to cause so much damage that they will regret their hostile action. Well we might not win but the enemy will not have it easy either -
Yes. The USA is a factor to our defence posture. However we cannot expect other countries not to attack us because US is on our side. We cannot expect full military support from the US as well. To include the US in all of our defence doctrines is a stupid thing. It means we rely too much on the US, and it will show that we are incapable of defending ourselves when the need arises. If you notice, MINDEF does not release news or information on how the US will integrate with our forces.Originally posted by CX:I don't think that its helpful to discuss ANYTHING narrowly... it simply does not do justice to the enormous complexities involved in the regional/global scheme of things.
The USA is an important factor influencing the SAF's defence posture. You can't rule them out. Besides, you need peacekeepers after that... so why limit the scope of discussion to only Sg and the immediate region? -
If Indonesia and malaysia combine their forces... they will still be weak... against singapore...Originally posted by Reggi:Any attempt to hold on to Malaysian territory will effectively force both Indonesia and Malaysia to unite against us. For all their ups and downs in diplomacy, Islam will be a strong unifying factor, as well as the fact of common interest against an aggressive expansionist Singapore.
Given the size of their combined territories, it would be impossible to overrun them. As they pull in and engage in guerilla warfare, we would be drawn into precise the type of war we would want to avoid - a war of attrition.
Elements within the Middle East can be counted to support them with arms etc given that Singapore has always been aligned staunchly with the US. On the other hand, we cannot even be sure of US support if we are in the role of the aggressor.
Territorial ambitions will transform Singapore into the Israel of South East Asia. Is this something that we want?
Consider the fact that indonesia doesnt have the financial resources to even control its own separatist and the fact that malaysia would have been overrun by us....
Wat force does indonesia intend to gather against us?? if they challenge us.. we will simply be forced to support their separatist to divide the ABRI if not to weaken indonesia...
Actions will also be taken to weaken indonesia economically and millitary.... by taking out its central authority.
its not that difficult to beat up a BIG but nontheless... poor and weak nation... -
people always forget that indonesia needs to cross water to reach Sg... If even the China has problems mounting an amphibious operation against Taiwan, can anyone imagine the Abri coming at as in gang-pressed fishing boats and bum boats...
-
While the Middle East is not one big happy family, history has shown that they could and had united not once but thrice against Israel.Originally posted by CX:It is not something we want. But it is something we will expend all efforts to achieve if circumstances are forced upon us.
Islam is only a unifying force superficially. Millitary alliances are amongst the most fragile of political associations. Especially if the parties are united only in their cause against a common enemy. They will begin to step on each other's tail after awhile and start killing each other instead.
Case in point: WW2, Germany and Japan. Nothing in common, conflicting territorial interests but joined in alliance due to a superficial ideology.
And if Islam was a unifying force, then why isn't the Middle East one big happy family? Its much more complicated than that. Don't oversimplify geo-politics by using labels to freely. They mislead more often than they clarify.
You also forget that the southern tip of the peninsula is predominantly ethnic Chinese. They may not prove willing collaborators now, but people follow their interests just as often as they follow their nationalist passions. It will ultimately depend on the circumstances surrounding the scenario.
For instance, You think Malaysian Chinese are gonna happily give up the Chinese language, convert to Islam and invade Singapore if Malaysia and Indonesia unites in a religious alliance to smite the region of the Pagan Chinese scourge?
In such a scenario, Sg can count on not being alone... The Thais would get nervous and the Chinese might just wanna move in to claim their piece of the Spratlys and the Americans would wanna move in to "stabilise" the region.
Its not as simple as u think...
And when they rally and unite - it is not because of religon alone. It is also in their interest to stand against Israel. The last thing they want is a precedence for Middle Eastern land being partitioned and given away to non-indigenous entities.
In the case of Singapore, Indonesia must also intervene - the question that will be on their mind would be : if Singapore can attack JB today, whats to stop them from seizing batam and bintan too in the future?
In the past, Malaysian Chinese might have strongly identified themselves with their southern counterparts. But I think that such a link is not so strong today. I think that the bit about the Malaysian Chinese being forced to convert to Islam is totally irrelevant - why would the Malaysian government be forcing things upon the Malaysian Chinese at the time when they would want to count on their support?
I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil. And I don't see how China would want to move in on the Spratlys at this point of time - it have never been a issue of Malaysia or Indonesia being too strong for China. They did not attempt to occupy the islands mainly because they wanted to build an international presence - the aggression would have resulted in China's isolation from the world at large.
The American's would have wanted to stabilise the region, and I think it is pretty certain that they would have required Singapore to withdraw totally from Malaysian soil. Any other solution would not be acceptable to the Malaysians/Indonesians. Any other solution would not have restored peace.
The issues at hand is indeed not simple. I have never claimed that it is simple, or that my opinion encompasses all possible angles of the matter. Was it something I said that imparted such an impression?
Lastly, while it is true that Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to seriously threaten mainland Singapore - what they can do is to join up with Malaysia to restrict our sea lines of communication (SLOCs).
The majority of Singapore's economic activites come from external sources. If all incoming planes and ships are being harrassed, what would the cost be to our economy? If we have to mobilise fighters and gun boats to escort all these traffic, what would the cost be like? -
****simi cost??? where is the threat?? indonesian and malaysian navy??? i thought RSN and RSAF already sent them an invitation card to become the son-in-law of the sea dragon at the bottom of the sea.....???Originally posted by Reggi:While the Middle East is not one big happy family, history has shown that they could and had united not once but thrice against Israel.
And when they rally and unite - it is not because of religon alone. It is also in their interest to stand against Israel. The last thing they want is a precedence for Middle Eastern land being partitioned and given away to non-indigenous entities.
****CAN dont talk about isreal here?? singapore not isreal hor... and other then malaysia and indonesia which can boast of muslim malay brotherhood... the other 9 nation of ASEAN hardly think themselves malay or muslim enough to join malaysia and indonesia against singapore... i WONT be surprise on the other hand... if the Aussies might wanna backstab indonesia once in a while... likewise.. thailand and phillipine also got bones to grind with malaysia.... so... who is the real isreal here???
In the case of Singapore, Indonesia must also intervene - the question that will be on their mind would be : if Singapore can attack JB today, whats to stop them from seizing batam and bintan too in the future?
****wacking malaysia is like wacking a dog... wacking indonesia would be like wacking a bear... so... just because singapore can wack a dog... i seriously doubt singapore would unilaterally (eat too full) go and wack the bear..... crap... logic..
In the past, Malaysian Chinese might have strongly identified themselves with their southern counterparts. But I think that such a link is not so strong today. I think that the bit about the Malaysian Chinese being forced to convert to Islam is totally irrelevant - why would the Malaysian government be forcing things upon the Malaysian Chinese at the time when they would want to count on their support?
****the malaysian chinese can choose to fight on singapore side.... OR get killed by both singapore troops and malaysian troops... fence sitting is clearly not an option for malaysian chinese.....
I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil. And I don't see how China would want to move in on the Spratlys at this point of time - it have never been a issue of Malaysia or Indonesia being too strong for China. They did not attempt to occupy the islands mainly because they wanted to build an international presence - the aggression would have resulted in China's isolation from the world at large.
****hahahaa......... sure... you can hope... you can pray... but please do tell... if CHINA tomolo come and take away you island...wat can YOU DO???
and if thailand decide to march south when singapore march north... wat r u gonna do??? put on your thinking cap and THINK somemore???
The American's would have wanted to stabilise the region, and I think it is pretty certain that they would have required Singapore to withdraw totally from Malaysian soil. Any other solution would not be acceptable to the Malaysians/Indonesians. Any other solution would not have restored peace.
****naive..... first you think that the thai wont get involve... then u hope that china wont take away your island... now you believe that americans are gonna save your ass...... ahhaahaaa.a........
****acceptable to malaysians??? you and wat army is gonna make your stand??
The issues at hand is indeed not simple. I have never claimed that it is simple, or that my opinion encompasses all possible angles of the matter. Was it something I said that imparted such an impression?
****blur king....
Lastly, while it is true that Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to seriously threaten mainland Singapore - what they can do is to join up with Malaysia to restrict our sea lines of communication (SLOCs).
****wehh...... surely i think wat you really mean is SAF cuts off indonesian SLOCs right??? i mean... clearly... as you claim... indonesia do lack the force to threaten singapore...
The majority of Singapore's economic activites come from external sources. If all incoming planes and ships are being harrassed, what would the cost be to our economy? If we have to mobilise fighters and gun boats to escort all these traffic, what would the cost be like? -
In the first place, we discussed that Sg was retaliating to armed aggression from the north. The discussion then proceeded if we hold their territory or not and you replied:Originally posted by Reggi:In the case of Singapore, Indonesia must also intervene - the question that will be on their mind would be : if Singapore can attack JB today, whats to stop them from seizing batam and bintan too in the future?
Any attempt to hold on to Malaysian territory will effectively force both Indonesia and Malaysia to unite against us
so i said
It is not something we want. But it is something we will expend all efforts to achieve if circumstances are forced upon us.
so who's the aggressor here? not us... we, unlike israel who must worry about having to cede Tel Aviv and Haifa to the Arabs, have no territorial ambition in the Archipelago. We merely defended ourselves when attacked. Batam and Bintan is out of the question! J.B is another matter altogether.
Again, we are NOT talking about Sg being the aggressor. If u had violent Muslim fundamentalist neighbours knocking at your door and agitating your Muslim minority, believe you me, you you be nervous. The Thais have a sizeable Muslim minority on its Southern borders with Malaysia... If there ever was a problem with Islamic fundamentalism, they would care.
In the past, Malaysian Chinese might have strongly identified themselves with their southern counterparts. But I think that such a link is not so strong today. I think that the bit about the Malaysian Chinese being forced to convert to Islam is totally irrelevant - why would the Malaysian government be forcing things upon the Malaysian Chinese at the time when they would want to count on their support?
[/quote]
Islamic fundamentalism is extreme and characterised by exclusion. It wouldn't be fundamentalist otherwise. PAS is not fundamentalist because they still have to balance the interests of their Chinese voters. Thats why we don't have to worry about them... yet. Why would they court the pork-eating infidels into collaborating with them? I find this inconceivable. You might as well ask Jews to vote Nazis.
I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil. And I don't see how China would want to move in on the Spratlys at this point of time - it have never been a issue of Malaysia or Indonesia being too strong for China. They did not attempt to occupy the islands mainly because they wanted to build an international presence - the aggression would have resulted in China's isolation from the world at large.
I admit, I brought it China for te heck of it, just to illustrate the many players who have an interest here. But NOBODY can isolate China anymore... and in times of crisis, who knows?
War, by its very definition, seeks to change the existing political order in favour of those who hope to win it. Why bother fighting an expensive war, damaging our economy and have nothing to show for it but the scars? Sure, leave our enemies intact and simmering with anger... buy us some time till they come at us again... go figure.
The American's would have wanted to stabilise the region, and I think it is pretty certain that they would have required Singapore to withdraw totally from Malaysian soil. Any other solution would not be acceptable to the Malaysians/Indonesians. Any other solution would not have restored peace.Maybe its just a difference in opinion...
The issues at hand is indeed not simple. I have never claimed that it is simple, or that my opinion encompasses all possible angles of the matter. Was it something I said that imparted such an impression?
nothing more interesting than a healthy exchange of views don't u think?
[quote]
Lastly, while it is true that Indonesia lacks the force projection capability to seriously threaten mainland Singapore - what they can do is to join up with Malaysia to restrict our sea lines of communication (SLOCs).
Then i hope they like being on the receiving end of the 7th fleets' fury... America does not like people to obstruct commerce. It violates the very basis of the freedom of the seas and commerce which they hold so dear... and it costs American businesses big bucks too... business losses don't contribute to campaign contributions. How many countries had tried to implement a hostile blockade and succeeded without inviting the American inteference? The last time China held missile tests in the straits, it invited a similar response from the white men as well. -
Reggi, no offense, but I do not understand your following point.
"I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil."
You have mentioned that you have served in the SAF before, thus i believe you should know that Singapore's strategy is to attack into Malaysia, in fact i tend to believe that that is the only objective Singapore will try to achieve militarily. So why did you say Singapore is the "aggressor occupying Malaysian soil" when clearly Malaysia would have initiated an armed response in the first place? Sorry if i did not understand you correctly. Please clarify. -
Erm if you actually looked carefully, Singapore's defence officials had never ever once refered to our northern neighbour as the enemy. Even training that time we use terms like Red Force or The Aggressor. But yes, the most likely military threat to us would be Malaysia....Originally posted by EXCO:Reggi, no offense, but I do not understand your following point.
"I do not think that the Thai would want to barge in if Singapore was the aggressor occupying Malaysian soil."
You have mentioned that you have served in the SAF before, thus i believe you should know that Singapore's strategy is to attack into Malaysia, in fact i tend to believe that that is the only objective Singapore will try to achieve militarily. So why did you say Singapore is the "aggressor occupying Malaysian soil" when clearly Malaysia would have initiated an armed response in the first place? Sorry if i did not understand you correctly. Please clarify.
Actually I think that the above exchange got abit messy. Essentially, the point I am trying to make, is that while we might win in the initial engagement, we cannot win the war if :
1) Singapore is the aggressor.
2) Singapore is holding onto Malaysian territory.
Anyway, there's a possibility of Singapore attacking without being invaded first - when our water supply is being threatened.
In the past, a tricky situation would be if Malaysia cuts off the supply of water and claimed that it is the sabotage of rebels. Singapore would be in a dire situation because the only way to get the water would be to invade JB and earn the tag of the 'aggressor'.
Now that we have our recycled sewag... errr Newater, a direct military response to the cutting off of water might not seem as inevitable as before. -
The poison shrimp doctrine already suggests that we are NOT going to be perceived as the aggressor.
We are just gonna go about our own peaceful business until someone tries to eat us... then they ends up with a very bad case of shits.
Since this is the case, then we should, for the sake of discussion assume the following (a) we are not going to initiate offensive and (b) there should be no holds barred in the following engagements since someone else has already thrown the opening punch.
In such a case, why rule out preventive occupation? The worst of our fears would already have been realised if someone was reckless enough to start a war with us so wouldn't it be worst if we fought a half-hearted war with half a mind that everything would return to normal when its all over?
Wars changes things. And i find the idea of a "peace without victory" repulsive. -
Thanks Reggi, i see your point, but i agree with CX as well, except for 1 point. The poison shrimp image is not suitable to describe Singapore's defence posture any longer. We will not go into battle with the objective that "we will kill you if you eat us." The key line there is "if you eat us". It suggests that we are already destroyed in any aspect, only then will the military exercise "extreme measures." I fully agree with your point on going to war. There is no point going into war and not getting anything in return, and it is impossible to go to war one day, and the next day everything returns to normal. In that i don't necessarily mean geographical gains from a battle, but more importantly, stability.
-
I'm more of a materialist in that area... and i equate a well managed strategic depth with a higher chance of future stability. We don't need that now because everybody's being such nice neighbours and all but in the event that something bad happens, a more concrete form of guarantee should be sought to prevent it from ever happenning again... and by this, i do not mean UN peacekeepers...
Originally posted by EXCO:... i don't necessarily mean geographical gains from a battle, but more importantly, stability.